Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 08/17/2023 (claimed foreign priority date 03/23/2023):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1.1 Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1.1.1 Claims 1-2, 9 and 20 recite the limitation/feature “auto brake valve,” which is not supported or described in the specification to understand what it does, or how it functions as being a part/component/element of the claimed/specified “runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS).” The specification, in numerous paragraphs, only specifies what other aircraft part(s)/component(s)/element(s) the claimed/specified “auto brake valve” is communicatively coupled to, and under which conditions/circumstances the claimed/specified “auto brake valve” is being controlled and/or set, BUT, HOWEVER, the specification is silent about what the claimed/specified “auto brake valve” does, or how it functions as being a part/component/element of the claimed/specified “runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS).” Clarification is required.
Even the fact that the claimed/specified “auto brake valve 116” shown in fig. 1 as being in communication with the claimed/specified “auto brake selector switch 112” and the “processor 106” does not provide any evidence for or explanation about what the claimed/specified “auto brake valve” does, or what it controls/regulates/opens/closes, etc., or how it functions as being a part/component/element of the claimed/specified “runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS).” Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the claimed/specified “auto brake valve” is not given a patentable weight, and hence the Examiner will interpret that the scope of claims is directed to “setting/controlling of an aircraft auto brake/landing gear via setting/controlling auto brake selector (ABS) switch.”
1.1.2 Claims 2-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2.1 Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
2.1.1 Claims 1-2, 9 and 20 recite the limitation/feature “auto brake valve,” which is unclear what it is and/or what it does, or what its functionalities are, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, this limitation/feature is not supported or described in the specification to understand what it does, or what it controls/regulates/opens/closes, etc., or how it functions as being a part/component/element of the claimed/specified “runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS),” which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the claimed/specified “auto brake valve” is not given a patentable weight, and hence the Examiner will interpret that the scope of claims is directed to “setting/controlling of an aircraft auto brake/landing gear via setting/controlling auto brake selector (ABS) switch.”
2.1.2 Claims 2-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCKEOWN (US20200180781) in view of Wapenski (US20180122250).
As per claims 1 and 20, MCKEOWN discloses through the invention (see entire document) a system/method, comprising:
an auto brake installed in an aircraft (Para [0051, 0055, 0060, 0066, 0070, 0088] – teaching aircraft autobrake);
an auto brake selector (ABS) switch communicatively coupled to the auto brake, the ABS switch configured to have a manual ABS switch setting to control the auto brake (fig. 1, Para [0009-0010, 0043, 0051] – teaching autobrake control device 10 (which looks identical/similar to the ABS switch 112 presented in fig. 3 in the instant specification); pilot who manually enters the autobrake setting); and
a runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS) communicatively coupled to the auto brake, the ROAAS comprising at least one processor (abstract, Para [0017, 0028-0029, 0031-0032, 0037-0041, 0066-0068, 0086, 0101] – teaching software program for detecting and reporting anomalies during operation of an aircraft, alerting an operator when the predicted performance is outside of an acceptable performance for the aircraft) configured to:
obtain ROAAS output data, the ROAAS output data including at least one of selected runway, runway distance remaining, runway stopping point, or runway condition (abstract, Para [0019, 0029, 0033, 0036-0037, 0048, 0071-0072, 0074, 0090, 0094, 0098] – teaching receiving ground movement activities and a maximum landing distance; range of landing distance; aircraft landing stopping distances; possible increased stopping distances; measuring and observing deviations in the anticipated deceleration rates and deviations in directional compliance along the runway and the distance covered to reach a safe taxiing speed; capturing actual surface movement events of an aircraft and comparing data from the event to a simulated or anticipated version of the event);
obtain a trained artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) model (Para [0051, 0092, 0096, 0100]);
based at least on the ROAAS output data and the trained AI and/or ML model, infer an ABS brake setting (fig. 1-4, Para [0043, 0051, 0054-0055, 0070, 0088] – teaching adjusting autobrake settings; an autobrake setting determined by the software, using machine learning and artificial intelligence within this system, as a landing takes place and velocities of the decelerating aircraft are observed); and
set the auto brake in accordance with the ABS brake setting (fig. 1-4, Para [0043, 0051, 0054-0055, 0070, 0088]).
MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing an auto brake selector (ABS) switch communicatively coupled to auto brake.
However, Wapenski discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3, Para [0066, 0069] – teaching status indicator/autobrake select switch 260 (which looks identical/similar to the ABS switch 112 presented in fig. 3 in the instant specification) in direct communication with automatic braking system controller 202; schematic for a hydraulic brake system and associated flight deck controls implemented in accordance with an illustrative embodiment; schematic 300 as a diagram illustrating the interaction and data flow between various brake system components of aircraft 200 of FIG. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Wapenski, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to automatically decelerate an aircraft to reduce passenger discomfort, reduce thermal energy generation by the brake system, and reduce runway occupancy time of the aircraft (see entire Wapenski document, particularly Para [0001]).
As per claim 2, MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing at least one processor configured to set the auto brake in accordance with the ABS brake setting, if the ABS brake setting does not match the manual ABS switch setting.
However, Wapenski discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-4, Para [0063, 0081, 0088] – teaching brake-to-exit function 214 that controls operation of braking system 120 such that aircraft 200 decelerates to a full stop when aircraft 200 has passed end-of-runway buffer location 25, in the absence of pilot override 254 disarming braking system 120.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Wapenski, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to automatically decelerate aircraft from selected velocity such that aircraft stops prior to runway end (see entire Wapenski document, particularly Para [0063, 0088]).
As per claim 3, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) indicator (Para [0067]).
MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing ABS switch that further comprises an indicator, wherein if the ABS brake setting does not match the manual ABS switch setting, the indicator configured to be activated to inform a pilot that the ABS brake setting has been changed by the ROAAS.
However, Wapenski discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-3, Para [0058] – teaching alert 252 provided on the flight deck of aircraft 200 as an alert, such as a light or other indicator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Wapenski, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to alert the operator of aircraft (see entire Wapenski document, particularly Para [0058]).
As per claim 4, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) indicator configured to be activated as blinking to inform the pilot that the ABS brake setting has been changed by the ROAAS, if the ABS brake setting does not match the manual ABS switch setting (Para [0067]).
As per claim 5, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) indicator as a light emitting diode (LED) (Para [0067]).
As per claim 6, MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing ABS brake setting as overridable by the pilot interfacing with the ABS switch to set the ABS switch to the manual ABS switch setting.
However, Wapenski discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-3, Para [0060, 0078, 0081, 0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Wapenski, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to automatically decelerate an aircraft to reduce passenger discomfort, reduce thermal energy generation by the brake system, and reduce runway occupancy time of the aircraft (see entire Wapenski document, particularly Para [0001]).
As per claim 7, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) indicator (Para [0067]).
MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing ABS switch that further comprises an indicator, wherein the indicator is deactivated when the ABS brake setting is overridden by the pilot interfacing with the ABS switch to the manual ABS switch setting.
However, Wapenski discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-3, Para [0058] – teaching alert 252 provided on the flight deck of aircraft 200 as an alert, such as a light or other indicator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Wapenski, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to alert the operator of aircraft (see entire Wapenski document, particularly Para [0058]).
As per claim 8, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) indicator as a light emitting diode (LED) (Para [0067]).
As per claim 10, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) trained AI and/or ML model as trained using a supervised learning technique (Para [0051, 0092, 0096, 0100]).
As per claim 11, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) supervised learning technique that involves learning from landing data obtained from different aircraft and such different aircraft's ABS switch settings (Para [0018-0019, 0038, 0048, 0051, 0074, 0091-0093, 0096, 0100] – teaching a software program and method that captures surface movement events, logs them and analyzes them near real time to detect anomalies in the speed, landing distance and rate of deceleration of aircrafts; software program configured to: receive … historical data).
As per claim 16, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) ROAAS output data that includes the selected runway, the runway distance remaining, the runway stopping point, and the runway condition (abstract, Para [0019, 0029, 0033, 0036-0037, 0048, 0071-0072, 0074, 0090, 0094, 0098]).
As per claim 17, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) at least some of the at least one processor installed in the aircraft (abstract, Para [0017, 0028-0029, 0031-0032, 0037-0041, 0066-0068, 0086, 0101]).
As per claim 18, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) at least some of the at least one processor installed offboard of the aircraft (Para [0069] – teaching local or remote air traffic control tower, a separate monitoring computer, or any preferred location or combination of locations consistent with the desired purpose).
As per claim 19, MCKEOWN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) ABS switch installed in the aircraft (fig. 1, Para [0009-0010, 0043, 0051] – teaching autobrake control device 10 (which looks identical/similar to the ABS switch 112 presented in fig. 3 in the instant specification).
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MCKEOWN and Wapenski, further in view of ARSENAULT (US20200317327).
As per claim 9, MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing a landing gear system comprising auto brake valve.
However, ARSENAULT discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-3, abstract, numerous paragraphs, e.g., Para [0004-0017, 0027-0037, 0041-0045, 0049-0051] – teaching brake control valves 160-164 as components/elements of brake system 100 configured to control braking of left landing gear 12 and right landing 14.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by ARSENAULT, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to slow the wheels, and the aircraft, during, for example, landing or a rejected takeoff; to control the brake pressure/braking force to prevent or reduce skidding, as the pressure/force exceeds the braking condition supported by the tire/runway friction (see entire ARSENAULT document, particularly Para [0002]).
3. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MCKEOWN and Wapenski, further in view of Baker (US20220300672).
As per claims 12 and 14, MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing trained AI and/or ML model as trained using a K-Fold cross-validation technique.
However, Baker discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0063, 0066].
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Baker, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a nice balance between computational complexity and validation accuracy (see entire Baker document, particularly Para [0066]).
As per claims 13 and 15, MCKEOWN does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing trained AI and/or ML model as trained using a logistic regression model technique.
However, Baker discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0053, 0057-0059].
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of MCKEOWN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Baker, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate complexity of an input data set by fitting the data (inputs to outputs) and check the residual (“error”) (see entire Baker document, particularly Para [0058]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Maxwell (US6360853) – (see entire Maxwell document, particularly abstract – teaching a brake assembly that has a plurality of brake fluid actuated pistons; the brake assembly that includes a brake inlet port for receiving brake fluid from a fluid reservoir; the brake assembly that includes a plurality of cylinders for actuating a corresponding plurality of pistons; the plurality of cylinders that includes at least a first cylinder, a second cylinder, and a third cylinder for actuating corresponding pistons; the first, second, and third pistons that actuate at first, second, and third time intervals; a fluid distribution manifold connected in fluid communication with the brake inlet port; a plurality of cylinder manifolds that includes at least a first cylinder manifold connected in fluid communication with the fluid distribution manifold and the first cylinder, a second cylinder manifold connected in fluid communication with the fluid distribution manifold and the second cylinder, and a third cylinder manifold connected in fluid communication with the fluid distribution manifold and the third cylinder; the first, second, and third cylinder manifolds that connect the first, second, and third cylinders in parallel fluid flow, and the parallel fluid flow tends to equalize the first, second, and third time intervals).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662